Cyprus-Forum.com

[wyoming cowboy]

What is the true reason the Tc are against a true BBF....that is what the question should be. Blaming the Gc side for pushing a BBF is the greatest compromise. It gives the Tc what they were asking for prior to 74....

[Gasman]

because we are quite happy to keep the status quo for as long as it takes

If that had been the RoC stated position when they were wanting to get into the EU - do you think they would have been accepted?

[Paphitis]

because we are quite happy to keep the status quo for as long as it takes

If that had been the RoC stated position when they were wanting to get into the EU - do you think they would have been accepted?

The RoC was accepted in the EU in record time. And as someone else also pointed out, Germany, France, and Austria had certain objectives met, which suited their interests when the RoC joined the EU.

It is not the RoC's stated position. The RoC, would most certainly prefer a unified state solution or True BBF based on UN framework, but this is skewed by the TC side resulting in no settlement being achieved. It is obvious to us, that the TCs want recognised Partition. If this is the case, they should know how to achieve this result.

[Paphitis]

Pyrpolyser, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Papadopoulos was just plain naive, as you described him. He did not read the Annan Plan, you say, and believed everything Klerides told him. Not in a million times. Papadopoulos could only become President with the votes of AKEL. He needed to convince these people (who were led to believe by Papaioannou - his advice before dying, to the party - that the worst nationalist in Cyprus was Papadopoulos and if he ever became President that could mean the end of the left) that he would solve the Cyprob on the basis of the Annan plan. He even featured in huge posters pre 2003 elections, saying exactly this.

His agenda was clear. Become President and bury the efforts for solution on a BBF basis. He had an issue with this, primarily, not with the specific plan. His followers today have the same issue with BBF. Thus, the wily Papadopoulos fooled Christofias into supporting him, promising to deliver solution and Christofias was convinced that the "man has changed".

In short, Papadopoulos was a prime partitionist, rejectionist, ultra nationalist and Turk hater. He was voted in by the left! At least, the left in the north held a responsible/honourable stance ...

The above just doesn't hold water when some 74% voted NO to the Annan Plan. Obviosly, the GCs had many concerns, such as security as well as many more.

[Gasman]

It wasn't EVERYONE who voted who voted for Eroglu. Though a lot of younger TCs I've spoken with recently were rooting for him.

Not sure if the 'talks' had much influence on the result or not really. After all, it is not just a whole generation and more of GCs who have never lived in a United Cyprus, same thing goes for a generation or more of TCs too - and of course the settlers. And the 'Cyprus Talks' had been going on so long with no headway ...

Maybe if Talat and Christofias had been more forthcoming about what they'd agreed/accomplished so far as they went along? And not left the (seemingly) all important issues of PROPERTY and SECURITY until last?

[Tim Drayton]

It wasn't EVERYONE who voted who voted for Eroglu. Though a lot of younger TCs I've spoken with recently were rooting for him.

Not sure if the 'talks' had much influence on the result or not really. After all, it is not just a whole generation and more of GCs who have never lived in a United Cyprus, same thing goes for a generation or more of TCs too - and of course the settlers. And the 'Cyprus Talks' had been going on so long with no headway ...

Maybe if Talat and Christofias had been more forthcoming about what they'd agreed/accomplished so far as they went along? And not left the (seemingly) all important issues of PROPERTY and SECURITY until last?

Some weeks before the election, I was chatting briefly to some of Talat's staff, who take their coffee break at my regular coffee shop in north Nicosia which is close to the Presidential Palace, and in response to my suggestion that things were not looking good, they said that they were quietly confident because they thought that they had the support of young voters. If what you say is true, they were mistaken.

[Paphitis]

It wasn't EVERYONE who voted who voted for Eroglu. Though a lot of younger TCs I've spoken with recently were rooting for him.

Not sure if the 'talks' had much influence on the result or not really. After all, it is not just a whole generation and more of GCs who have never lived in a United Cyprus, same thing goes for a generation or more of TCs too - and of course the settlers. And the 'Cyprus Talks' had been going on so long with no headway ...

Maybe if Talat and Christofias had been more forthcoming about what they'd agreed/accomplished so far as they went along? And not left the (seemingly) all important issues of PROPERTY and SECURITY until last?

I wasn't talking about the elections results. Talat was no different to Eroglu!

The situation is that there will never be any compromise which will see a True BBF being agreed to and which is workable and viable and is based on UN resolutions and UN framework. This is mainly as a result of unreal demands and expectations from the TC side.

The election results are irrelevant. It is apparent to us, that the TC side want a recognised "trnc". They prefer fully agreed Partition. Unfortunately, they do not know how to achieve this.

Also, I am not saying that most GCs or the RoC will find this acceptable. I just believe that there is a fair chance that it will be acceptable, provided the TC side make certain proposals which are fair. It is certainly my opinion that agreed partition is the only workable and achievable solution if not unitary state or True BBF. Many GCs I speak to feel the same way. For this to be acceptable, it is really up the the TC side to offer a fair 80:20 split which can then be put to a referendum. Otherwise, we just remain with the Status Quo, and this is also fine with us, because we will never sign away 37% of Cypriot territory.

Yes it is painful. But it is hardly our fault. The TCs will not compromise.

They need to work things out for themselves. We know exactly what we want, but it appears that they do not know how to achieve what they want!

They need to make the first move.

[Bananiot]

Birkibrisli gardash, I have found the way to keep my bodily and spiritual balance. Do not talk with confirmed morons. You should do the same.

[DT.]

Birkibrisli gardash, I have found the way to keep my bodily and spiritual balance. Do not talk with confirmed morons. You should do the same.

seems a bit harsh for poor old yfronts.

[BirKibrisli]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

If you take as benchmark the 1960 Constitution to decide on who is making 'compromises" you are on shaky grounds,Piratis...The TCs can argue that they made the ultimate compromise by walking out of government and letting the GCs run the show for all these years...It is time to repay the compromise and let the TCs run the RoC government for the next 46 years...
Why don't you take the post 1974 reality as benchmark..??? a lot has happened since the 1960 agreement,you don't need me to remind you...Will you ever begin to see the world outside official GC propaganda framework???When it does suit you you want to start the argument from 1974,when it doesn't you are happy to go back to 1960...You want to have your cake and eat it too...I can understand why for propaganda purposes the RoC government would insist they reperesent all of Cyprus..But you cannot ignore the reality that across the green line there is an entity self-titled the TRNC,and you need to deal with that reality...This is where most GCs go wrong in my opinion..They cannot differentiate between their governments propaganda and the reality...Hence you cannot see the real compromises the TCs are making...Which is a pity,becuase that stops you from feeling empathy and compassion for them...And vice versa...The biggest obstacle to overcome if we are to find a just and lasting solution...

Your stupidity really amazes me.

Who cares about the 1959 agreements? The situation was unworkable, and now it is all over.

The question is this. Do the TCs want Partition, or do they want a unified state or a proper BBF?

Since all indications are that most of you want Partition, then you better offer something very tangible and fair, so that your proposals can be unanimously accepted. Otherwise, we just continue as we are. The choice is yours really!

Listen ,you shithead...Because you are too thick to understand what Piratis and I are talking about,you cannot go around calling people "stupid"...got it,stupid????
Now go to your room and play with your model planes,especially designed for the intellectually challenged..

It is very unfortunate to rad such one sided debate in terms of intelligence. Piratis has given you some very clear definitions, but you are too stupid to realise and are incapable to simplify things into what is real. You don't wouldn't know reality if came and spat in your face.

The possible scenarios can be whittled down to just 3-4, including status quo. Even this is acceptable to us if we don't have a better alternative.

It is the TCs that don't know what they want, and if they do, they don't know how to achieve a result. It is your community that needs to work things out, because we are quite happy to keep the status quo for as long as it takes. If you want agreed Partition, then you know how to achieve this. If you want a BBF, then you know how to compromise in order to achieve a workable BBF acceptable to both communities.

Otherwise, the status quo continues to the day you die, stupid!

No need to complicate things.

We are trying to have a constructive discussion here about the background to the Eroglu victory...It is obviously too complicated for your level of intelligence,dingbat...So bat out and go and do some finger painting,there is a good fellow...Careful...Don't bump your head on the edge of the table..There you go...And stop fingering your arse...I've told you a million times you can't paint with or eat what comes out of that hole...